Trump says tougher gun laws not answer after Texas shooting

Trump pretends that all guns are identical. That’s a favorite trick of the NRA.

The mass murderer used an assault weapon. The hero didn’t.

It is possible to outlaw the type of weapon preferred by mass murderers without outlawing the pistols, hunting rifles and shotguns used for peaceful and defensive purposes.

@Dango bong

Well, yes, it's probably true that if the pastor had a loaded AK stashed behind the pulpit and every pew had a hollowed-out Bible with a Glock in it, then I'm sure the shooter would have been stopped a bit sooner, but at what point does the cure become worse than the disease?

A bad guy walks into a store and shoots a customer.

Another customer walks in and sees a person lying on the ground and a guy with a gun - so he shoots the gunman.

Another customer walks in, sees 2 people lying on the ground and a guy with a gun - so he shoots the gunman.

Another customer walks in...

Well, Japan has maybe the thoughest gun laws in the world. Basically only riffles are allowed to a few farmers so they can protect themselves from bears and wild boars. And we have no mass shootings. Yakuza have illegal guns, but they know better than to ever use them on civilians. Mainly they try to send messages by shooting rivals windows.

Well, yes, it's probably true that if the pastor had a loaded AK stashed behind the pulpit and every pew had a hollowed-out Bible with a Glock in it, then I'm sure the shooter would have been stopped a bit sooner, but at what point does the cure become worse than the disease?

Yep.

Maybe concert goers can carry weapons and receive training which would enable them to take out a shooter going berserk with an automatic weapon from a window 30-odd floors up.

say what you want but if someone in the church had a gun it would have been stopped.

IF - IF - they had expertise in using a handgun during an active, chaotic situation - maybe it would have been stopped. Or if they got off a lucky shot. 

Look at the NYPD cop (hats off to him) who shot the terrorist who'd run over the bicycle riders. The cop who shot the terrorist was trained in using his service revolver. He was trained to use it in an active, chaotic situation. He did shoot the terrorist, who was standing 10 - 15 feet away. He hit him once - after firing 9 rounds. Fortunately there were no innocent bystanders nearby who got hit by one of the other 8 rounds. 

Picture a church setting (or club, concert, movie theater, classroom, etc.). How many handgun owners would be cool enough to get off a good shot that would NOT hit someone else nearby? Practicing at the gun club is one thing; live and chaotic, something completely different. 

I love watching westerns, and those saloon shoot-em-ups with the good guy killing off the bad guys without hurting innocent bystanders made fun cinema. But it contributed to the myth of the good guy with a gun. America can’t be made ‘great’ by continuing to believe myths.

Doofus Don should really keep his dopey mouth shut. Tougher gun laws would absolutely have prevented the Texas massacre, and all previous and future massacres too. That's why countries like the UK and Japan do not have similar massacres every week. It's clear that Donald is too stupid to realise this.

Let's follow Donalds "logic" to its conclusion: if tougher gun laws are not the answer then mandatory carrying of weapons should be passed into law at the earliest opportunity. All adults and children should be obliged to carry fully loaded, unlocked, automatic weapons in public at all times. Anyone who fails to do so is clearly inciting a mass shooting and should immediately be arrested and jailed for endangering the peace.

If someone in the church had a gun there is a very small chance they could have stopped it. However, it is extremely likely they would have been first to be shot. Stating that tighter guns laws won't stop these kinds of attacks is fuzzy-logic. The US has a long running culture of gun ownership dating back to the old west some 2-300 years ago. This 'kill or be killed' mentality is strongly imbedded in American culture. People live with a constant paranoia of other people with guns, so they buy guns too. This is the sole reason they support gun ownership. Tighter gun controls do work, as has been proven in Australia over the last 20 odd years. The rural youth suicide rate dropped by 70% in the first year after the buy-back and there has not been a mass-shooting in Australia since the buy-back. In 2015 there were 33,000 gun relate deaths in the US and over 50% were suicides. In Japan, there are only a handful of gun related deaths each year, but over 90% are suicides and usually police officers.

@bass4funk - Again, we’re it not for that brave samaritan that shot the shooter, many more lives would have been lost. 

Perfect rhetoric! If guns weren't so easily obtained, there would have been no deaths in the church at all, right? Again, we see the pro-gun people focussing on the aftermath and ignoring the root of the problem.

Did Trump discuss this with Abe? He could have explained to Abe that Japan would become even safer if Japanese could purchase weapons to defend themselves.

And then he could try to sell Japan American-made handguns and rifles.

It should be noted that in Japan after a stabbing incident Japan tightened the laws on possession of even knives.

It seems now is not the time to talk of these things and that prayers are the answer.

The gun terrorists will continue to slaughter innocents. It will never be "appropriate" to tackle the problem.

Some of the toughest gun laws in the US are in areas that have literally hundreds of shooting deaths per year.

Yeah sadly Chicago is right next to several states that have some of the least strict gun laws. A study came out recently that showed a huge number of the shootings in Chicago happen with guns purchased in neighboring states with lax laws.

The "criminals don't follow the law so only law-abidding citizens are hurt by gun laws" argument is utterly asinine. Less guns is directly correlated to less gun deaths throughout the world. So, you make an incentive to get rid of your gun (buy-back programs) which leads to less guns and less gun deaths. You make mandatory background checks which means less guns can be purchased which leads to less guns and less gun deaths. You make licensing expensive, tedious, and every few years, which leads to less guns and less gun deaths. You increase the penalties for having an unregistered gun. You increase the penalties even more for using an unregesitered gun. You also make severe penalties for giving or selling your gun to someone else privately. All of these things combined WILL help America. Yes, of course, SOME criminals will still get guns and use them. But these kinds of steps will make it more difficult and more risky for them to acquire. The alternative is asinine.

Again, we’re it not for that brave semaritan that shot the shooter, many more lives would have been lost.

The right wingers started with their pet conspiracy theories, an antifa member, ISIS, and broadly the democrats are buying guns to wage war against conservatives. The right wingers are trying to develop a mind set that they are under fire and endangered. In terms of outdated thoughts and inability to think rationally, yes they are under figurative fire and endangered.

Now the right winger are hanging their hat on a guy who had a rifle and was close enough and brave enough to try and stop the shooting. Based on reports from one victim, the guy saved lives, and he is a hero. However, the shooter should never have had a gun and damn sure shouldn't have had an assault rifle.

Following this argument, we should arm schools, movie theaters, concert halls, public parks? It is just addressing the symptoms of the problem, which is the proliferation of assault rifles and people having access to guns who should never have them. There is a broader argument for following a policy like Australia, which does make a lot of sense. The right wingers see any movement to limit gun rights as a slippery slope that will . . . . end up with the loss of their guns, heritage, inability to be a hero, etc.

Are assault rifles really necessary outside the military or police?

What is wrong with banning guns for people who shouldn't have them: mentally unstable like this killer, people on terrorist watch lists, people who are dishonorably discharged, etc? The U.S. already bans felons from carrying guns. That was probably a slip caused by the lefties, but soon to be righted by the GoP. Their motto, arm everyone, problem solved.

When you have a law in place that DEMANDED the Air Force to report to the civilan police authorities a court martial had occurred and charges had been brought against this person recently involved in this shooting that would have prevented him from buying a weapon that he had used, what is the point of yet ANOTHER law(s) if you are not held to envorce them?

Sadly it would not have stopped him from purchasing a handgun. No matter how many laws you put on the books it's not going to change the fact that people can get guns, legally or otherwise, if they really want to.

Some of the toughest gun laws in the US are in areas that have literally hundreds of shooting deaths per year.

Purchasing guns is not the problem, owning them is!

if NK wants to defeat USA again, just flood the country with illegal guns and watch them exterminate themselves.

The solution is simple:

An immediate ban on the sale of all semi and fully automatic weapons.

A 1 month amnesty for all those who currently own a semi or fully automatic weapon.

Anyone found selling (immediately) or owning an automatic weapon (after the amnesty) will receive a fine of $1m.

That wouldn't infringe anyone's second amendment rights - it would still be legal to sell and own an unmodified hand gun, or an unmodified rifle - ONE. An individual doesn't need more than one weapon.

This probably wouldn't reduce the number of 'incidents' occurring as it doesn't tackle the numerous other reasons why these shootings happen. It would however reduce the number of casualties, possibly quite dramatically.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that such a solution would be a good first step.

This is a tough nut to crack. I can see why having a gun might be a good idea in Alaska or Montana, but not in California or New York. I've always thought that a reasonable compromise would be to repeal the 2nd amendment and allow each individual state to decide for itself whether guns will be legal or completely banned. This way Americans could choose whether they want to live in a gun free state or not. There are obviously problems with this though, ie. would non-gun states have to set up highway checkpoints and a joint border patrol to keep gun smugglers out? Would this be the end of the United States on some level?

say what you want but if someone in the church had a gun it would have been stopped

Actually, this assumption that someone having a gun would have stopped the shooting is based upon the idea that everyone who owns or carries a gun would use it, or would be trained to use it to stop the killing.

Gunman yet again mows down a load of adults & kids. The proposed answer; more guns, more people carrying guns, make them easier to get.

Trump's "extreme vetting" -- good for immigration, yet not good for gun purchases??? Whaaaaaaat???

What we will NEVER find out from the so-called "investigation" into this shooting: the result of the pharmacology tests -- what PHARMACEUTICALS was the shooter on at the time?

Once again Dumb Donny has to give his one cent worth. He's probably making a profit out of the arms trade anyway. He mentioned the 2nd amendment last year at a rally and openly advocated murdering Hillary Clinton. What's it all to him, he's a super-criminal with a posse of his own Tonton Macoute. He's pushing buttons to the gun worshiping cult and then he claims that everybody loves him. This gun cult has gone out of hand and now we got a bunch of juvenile loudmouths who listen to every arm-flapping Hitler who loves to blame everybody else. America is very sick today.

I suppose some people are going to say "Oh, this is just collateral damage. We want our guns!"

ONLY, and I mean ONLY are Americans dumb enough (and the means the nutters; not everyone believes in the crazy gun laws in the US) to argue what Trump said that, "If laws were tighter it would have been worse; instead of 27 dead you might have HUNDREDS if the man had not been able to get his gun and stop him".

Yes... Trump says the SHOOTINGS might have been worse if the other man didn't have a gun, completely ignoring the fact that if the shooter didn't have one he could not have done what he did. Period.

Ban automatic weapons and make bullets at least 20$ a piece.

Gun owners also should pass a psychology test every year.

"But it will infringe my liberties! 2nd amendment!"

Well, tell that to the victims and the families...

Again, we’re it not for that brave semaritan that shot the shooter, many more lives would have been lost. So the anti-gun loons will think that way and the pro-gun folks will see it another way.

A man walks into a church with an extremely powerful firearm and massacres over 20 people before he himself is shot.

Conclusion: guns are a good thing. People who disagree are 'loons'.

I'd love to get these people to complete syllogisms.

All men are mortal

Socrates is a man

Socrates would still be alive today if he had been armed with a powerful firearm. A bloody big one.

Bass: even though the police can’t be everywhere all the time, wait and just take a chance for whatever reason. 

Ever drop your kids off at the movie theater? Or the mall? Or...anywhere? How do they manage in such a freightful society without a gun? Seem like you're always safe....but not so much for them.

Texas: pro-Antifa SJW 

Just so you guys know, right after the shooting some right-wing trolls immediately started tweeting that this guy was ANTIFA. It's all over the Fox News message boards. You might remember blacklabel littering the original story of the shooting with the same information.

Anyway, if you see someone talking about ANTIFA, that's why. They were either duped or they just like the way it sounds.

Trump does not know what "the answer" is ... he is uninformed on the matter. Which can we take action on TODAY -- mental health or guns? The answer is GUNS -- that is something we CAN take action on TODAY!

@Scrote - Doofus Don should really keep his dopey mouth shut. Tougher gun laws would absolutely have prevented the Texas massacre, and all previous and future massacres too. That's why countries like the UK and Japan do not have similar massacres every week. It's clear that Donald is too stupid to realise this.

Actually he's not that stupid. Over 60% of Americans support gun ownership. It's a vote buying statement.

Scrote is right. Traitortrump probably has stock in arms sales and he don't care who kills who, whether it's white, black or other. He sets groups of people against each other and he sits back and watches his Nazi supporters stir up trouble. Donald Trump is like Moammar Khadaffy in that he lives to instill fear in people and that he likes to see them die and that he is a PEST and a DOUCHEBAG.

Lotta comments. Wouldn't it be good if someone like the shooter knew he could tell a person that he's losing it...that this access was readily available...you have to wonder about gun advertisements. Maybe they should be like cigarette advertisements. Special notices on them for misused. Hot lines, etc. And also, I bet a number of vets have a good idea about this guy's mind. Fried on video games, and then placed into the machine himself. But never becoming a adult. Sound familiar...like to talk about it with a sociopath near you?

An individual doesn't need more than one weapon.

You misunderstand totally the mentality.

Feel free to replace word weapon with just about anything else...

An individual doesn't need more than one ーーーーーーー！

say what you want but if someone in the church had a gun it would have been stopped.

When you have a law in place that DEMANDED the Air Force to report to the civilan police authorities a court martial had occurred and charges had been brought against this person recently involved in this shooting that would have prevented him from buying a weapon that he had used, what is the point of yet ANOTHER law(s) if you are not held to envorce them?

Trump: "If you did what you're suggesting, there would have been no difference three days ago and you might not have had that very brave person who happens to have a gun or a rifle in his trunk."

True. But the Trump haters won't admit it.

"I can see why having a gun might be a good idea in Alaska or Montana, but not in California or New York."

clamenza: "And thats exactly what criminal thugs want you to believe." ( 11 thumbs-down so far, lol )

You can take the 11 thumbs-down here as evidence you're right, clamenza.

It seems America can't be no-guns country like Japan. There are too many pychopaths and gangsters having all kinds of guns / weapons. So good people also definitely need proper guns to protect their families because police don't come soon in very spacious country.

Well, Japan has maybe the thoughest gun laws in the world. 

the problem is in America guns are already rampant. So passing a law will only hurt the people who follow the law. The bad guys do not follow the law.

Its not a blank slate like Japan, me thinks

Actually, this assumption that someone having a gun would have stopped the shooting is based upon the idea that everyone who owns or carries a gun would use it, or would be trained to use it to stop the killing.

more silliness

Once again, the leftists' talking point that we NRA members are evil got shot down because it turns out it was an NRA member who used his AR-15 to ventilate the pro-Antifa SJW church killer here in Texass by putting at least two rounds into him as he was scurrying from the scene like the cockroach he was. . . .

I can see why having a gun might be a good idea in Alaska or Montana, but not in California or New York.

And thats exactly what criminal thugs want you to believe.

Maybe concert goers can carry weapons and receive training which would enable them to take out a shooter going berserk with an automatic weapon from a window 30-odd floors up

Stupid, it’s so moronic as a tax payer to think that, all the big wigs of Hollywood, Silicon Valley can hire people with guns to protect them, but Europeans and leftist Anarchists (the tolerent people) demand that we disarm, trust the police, even though the police can’t be everywhere all the time, wait and just take a chance for whatever reason. Totally absurd!

Again, we’re it not for that brave semaritan that shot the shooter, many more lives would have been lost. So the anti-gun loons will think that way and the pro-gun folks will see it another way.